Evaluation, concertation, décision : quelle régulation pour le système éducatif ? Le cas de l'enseignement primaire genevois

Suite à trois années de concertation, le Département de l'instruction publique du canton de Genève a mis en place un « nouveau fonctionnement » de l'enseignement primaire à la rentrée scolaire de septembre 2008. La mise en oeuvre du nouveau dispositif était accompagnée de la création d'un outil d'évaluation externe appelé « Observatoire du fonctionnement de l'enseignement primaire ». L'analyse de cet outil d'évaluation fait l'objet du présent article. La problématique développée vise à montrer que, si l'expertise en matière d'évaluation de l'éducation n'est pas la science, elle peut toutefois être modestement fondée sur les valeurs de la production des connaissances, voire contribuer à quelque production de connaissances limitées aux « hypothèses mineures qui jaillissent chaque jour à foison dans le travail quotidien de la recherche » (Merton, 1965, pp. 13-14).

10

Over the last few decades, the Swiss higher education system has faced important reforms - both concerning its structure and its governance. As with other European countries, one of the most important changes consists of the strengthening of the higher education institutions' research mission through the reinforcement of the role of the National Science Foundation (NSF), which has become increasingly involved in sustaining academic careers. Meanwhile, traditionally and historically, the definition of a faculty member and his or her financial support has come from the higher education institutions (HEI) themselves. This redefinition of power relationships around the funding of academic temporary positions and research activities by the NSF can be analyzed as an attempt to reform the structure of academic careers and the allocation modes of academic positions. Being able to analyze the issue of allocating academic positions within the normative structure of science (Merton, The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973) is a constant concern for those involved in Higher Education Studies. This chapter is an attempt to nurture the debate by questioning, though a quantitative and qualitative research, the tension between the uses of universalist and particularist criteria in the allocation of academic positions. It analyses the possible exclusion process as a consequence of the organization of academic markets and their embeddedness in a wider societal organization.

Temozolomide versus standard 6-week radiotherapy versus hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients older than 60 years with glioblastoma: the Nordic randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with glioblastoma are older than 60 years, but treatment guidelines are based on trials in patients aged only up to 70 years. We did a randomised trial to assess the optimum palliative treatment in patients aged 60 years and older with glioblastoma. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma were recruited from Austria, Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. They were assigned by a computer-generated randomisation schedule, stratified by centre, to receive temozolomide (200 mg/m(2) on days 1-5 of every 28 days for up to six cycles), hypofractionated radiotherapy (34·0 Gy administered in 3·4 Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or standard radiotherapy (60·0 Gy administered in 2·0 Gy fractions over 6 weeks). Patients and study staff were aware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN81470623. FINDINGS: 342 patients were enrolled, of whom 291 were randomised across three treatment groups (temozolomide n=93, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=98, standard radiotherapy n=100) and 51 of whom were randomised across only two groups (temozolomide n=26, hypofractionated radiotherapy n=25). In the three-group randomisation, in comparison with standard radiotherapy, median overall survival was significantly longer with temozolomide (8·3 months [95% CI 7·1-9·5; n=93] vs 6·0 months [95% CI 5·1-6·8; n=100], hazard ratio [HR] 0·70; 95% CI 0·52-0·93, p=0·01), but not with hypofractionated radiotherapy (7·5 months [6·5-8·6; n=98], HR 0·85 [0·64-1·12], p=0·24). For all patients who received temozolomide or hypofractionated radiotherapy (n=242) overall survival was similar (8·4 months [7·3-9·4; n=119] vs 7·4 months [6·4-8·4; n=123]; HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·63-1·06; p=0·12). For age older than 70 years, survival was better with temozolomide and with hypofractionated radiotherapy than with standard radiotherapy (HR for temozolomide vs standard radiotherapy 0·35 [0·21-0·56], p<0·0001; HR for hypofractionated vs standard radiotherapy 0·59 [95% CI 0·37-0·93], p=0·02). Patients treated with temozolomide who had tumour MGMT promoter methylation had significantly longer survival than those without MGMT promoter methylation (9·7 months [95% CI 8·0-11·4] vs 6·8 months [5·9-7·7]; HR 0·56 [95% CI 0·34-0·93], p=0·02), but no difference was noted between those with methylated and unmethylated MGMT promoter treated with radiotherapy (HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·69-1·38]; p=0·81). As expected, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the temozolomide group were neutropenia (n=12) and thrombocytopenia (n=18). Grade 3-5 infections in all randomisation groups were reported in 18 patients. Two patients had fatal infections (one in the temozolomide group and one in the standard radiotherapy group) and one in the temozolomide group with grade 2 thrombocytopenia died from complications after surgery for a gastrointestinal bleed. INTERPRETATION: Standard radiotherapy was associated with poor outcomes, especially in patients older than 70 years. Both temozolomide and hypofractionated radiotherapy should be considered as standard treatment options in elderly patients with glioblastoma. MGMT promoter methylation status might be a useful predictive marker for benefit from temozolomide. FUNDING: Merck, Lion's Cancer Research Foundation, University of Umeå, and the Swedish Cancer Society.

Glioblastoma in elderly patients: health-related quality of life (hrqol) in a randomized trial comparing 6-weeks of tadiotherapy (rt) vs hypofractionated rt over 2 weeks vs temozolomide chemotherapy (tmz)

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, survival of patients with GBM over 60 years is still often less than 1 year. In the perspective of a short expected survival, the quality of the remaining life and the effects of therapy on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) should be given special emphasis when recommending treatment for the individual patients. Several studies have focused on survival of the elderly, but few data are available on HRQoL for different treatments. In a randomized trial, we compared survival and HRQoL for 3 treatment options, 6 weeks of RT, vs hypofractionated RT, or chemotherapy with TMZ. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed GBM patients, age ≥60 years with PS 0-2, were randomized to either standard RT (60 Gy in 2-Gy fractions over 6 weeks), hypofractionated RT (34 Gy in 3.4-Gy fractions over 2 weeks), or 6 cycles of chemotherapy with TMZ (200 mg/m2 day 1-5 every 28 days). QoL was determined by the EORTC QLQ 30 questionnaire and the Brain Cancer Module at inclusion, before start of therapy, at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after start of treatment. Patients were followed until death. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary objectives were HRQoL, neurologic symptom control, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 342 patients were included and 292 patients were randomized between the 3 treatment options and 50 patients between hypofractionated RT and TMZ. Median age was 70 years (range 60-92) with 58% being male. Performance status was 0-1 for 75% of patients and 73% had undergone surgical resection. CONCLUSION: The results from the HRQoL analysis of this trial will be presented together with survival data at the upcoming EANO meeting.

Diagnosis and treatment of primary CNS lymphoma in immunocompetent patients: guidelines from the European Association for Neuro-Oncology.

The management of primary CNS lymphoma is one of the most controversial topics in neuro-oncology because of the complexity of the disease and the very few controlled studies available. In 2013, the European Association of Neuro-Oncology created a multidisciplinary task force to establish evidence-based guidelines for immunocompetent adults with primary CNS lymphoma. In this Review, we present these guidelines, which provide consensus considerations and recommendations for diagnosis, assessment, staging, and treatment of primary CNS lymphoma. Specifically, we address aspects of care related to surgery, systemic and intrathecal chemotherapy, intensive chemotherapy with autologous stem-cell transplantation, radiotherapy, intraocular manifestations, and management of elderly patients. The guidelines should aid clinicians in their daily practice and decision making, and serve as a basis for future investigations in neuro-oncology.